US v. Michael Behrens

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00040-JPB-JES-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999590403]. [14-4808]

Appeal: 14-4808

Doc: 28

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4808

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL BEHRENS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00040-JPB-JES-1)

Submitted:

May 21, 2015

Decided:

May 27, 2015

Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
David J. Perri, Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4808

Doc: 28

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
A

jury

convicted

Michael

Behrens

of

two

counts

of

obstructing and resisting an officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 111(a)(1) (2012).

The district court sentenced Behrens to 24

months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Behrens’ counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising as an issue for review whether the district court erred
in

denying

Behrens’

motion

for

judgment

Government declined to file a brief.

of

acquittal.

The

Behrens was informed of

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so.

We affirm.

This court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion
for judgment of acquittal de novo.

United States v. Reed, 780

F.3d

The

260,

269

(4th

Cir.

2015).

jury

verdict

must

be

sustained if there is substantial evidence, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the government, to support it.

Id.

“Substantial evidence is that which ‘a reasonable finder of fact
could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion
of

a

defendant’s

guilt

beyond

a

reasonable

doubt.’”

Id.

(quoting United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 139 (4th Cir.
2014)).
To establish the offense of obstructing and resisting an
officer,

the

government

had

to
2

prove

that:

(1)

Behrens

Appeal: 14-4808

Doc: 28

“forcibly

Filed: 05/27/2015

resisted,

Pg: 3 of 4

opposed,

impeded,

intimidated

and

interfered” with a federal law enforcement officer; (2) “this
occurred while the officer was engaged in the performance of his
official duties;” and (3) Behrens did so willfully.

Potter v.

United States, 691 F.2d 1275, 1280 (8th Cir. 1982); see also
United

States

statute

v.

requires

Feola,
is

an

420

U.S.

intent

assault a federal officer.”).

671,

to

684

assault,

(1975)
not

an

(“All

the

intent

to

Our review of the record shows

that substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and the
district

court

did

not

err

in

denying

Behrens’

motion

for

judgment of acquittal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We

court

requires that counsel inform Behrens, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If

Behrens

requests

that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Behrens.

3

Appeal: 14-4808

Doc: 28

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4